RIP: Philip Seymour Hoffman

[Alf]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

IIRC, Hoffman did go into rehab last year.

They tried to make me go to rehab but I said, "No, no, no"

couldn't help post that as it's one of our prefered songs in my cover band.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Somewhere in the "how hard it is to kick" discussion it seems relevant that, by all accounts I've seen, he stopped for +/- 20 years before resuming the habit.

Make of that what you will I guess, but it seems as though it has some relevance somewhere.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So the cure for heroin addiction is marriage?

No, that's the cure for sex.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Somewhere in the "how hard it is to kick" discussion it seems relevant that, by all accounts I've seen, he stopped for +/- 20 years before resuming the habit.

Make of that what you will I guess, but it seems as though it has some relevance somewhere.

It's very hard for us to say whether something could have happened in his life that triggered the relapse.

And you look back at that Russell Brand quote "The last time I thought about heroin was yesterday."

He may have kicked it for 20 years, but it doesn't mean he wasn't thinking about it every single day.

[RomaGoth]

RIP PSH...

[Kodos]

From an email with my brother:

"As for PSH, that was really too bad. I heard he had a drug issue in his early 20's, though I missed until today that he had checked himself into rehab last spring. I really liked him as an actor since he wasn't on the screen for his looks, but instead because he was just a good actor, similar to Jack Nicholson for example. He graduated the year ahead of me. Our circles of friends crossed on some occasions, though I wouldn't put him in the friend category. I do recall him staring as Willy Lohman in Death of a Salesman my junior year. Would never want my kids to be involved in the music or film industry as the fame, money, and culture seems to ruin most kids who ever get into it."

[korme]

From Maron today, well said IMO- " Drug addiction is the closest true parallel to demonic possession that I know of. Having been possessed myself there is no worse feeling than being held hostage in your own body and mind by a demon that is hijacking and dictating all of your decisions. The demon is using your will to kill you in the name of relief and euphoria. That is the horror of the disease of addiction and I am sad that it took Hoffman. He will be missed."

[Fidatelo]

I don't find the addiction part as hard to understand as the fact anyone ever tries heroin in the first place. Like has been said earlier in the thread, we all know what the eventual likely outcome is. And not only that, but you have to stick a friggin' needle in your arm to do it! I'm not sure where I'd have to be in my head to get past those barriers the first time.

[molson]

I think a lot of times people turn to heroin to help with the withdrawals of other addictions, like from prescription medication. Or they're self-medicating a mental health issue.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

...And not only that, but you have to stick a friggin' needle in your arm to do it...

Well, FWIW it was reported that he was snorting it, not shooting it. Still...I agree with the whole "everyone knows what's likely to happen" thought process. If you're doing heroine in any form, you're already on your way out.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Well, FWIW it was reported that he was snorting it, not shooting it. Still...I agree with the whole "everyone knows what's likely to happen" thought process. If you're doing heroine in any form, you're already on your way out.

Not sure where you are getting info but he died with a needle in his arm.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by rowech

Not sure where you are getting info but he died with a needle in his arm.

Philip Seymour Hoffman Out of Rehab After 10-Day Stint : People.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Philip Seymour Hoffman Out of Rehab After 10-Day Stint : People.com

That was last year, but yesterday he was found dead with a needle in his arm and 20 used syringes in a plastic cup nearby.

Which I think would be a typical progression. If you're a heavy user you might have withdrawal bad enough that only IV use will help. That's how a lot of people get to that point. You have the worst nasuea ever, can't sleep, are shivering, etc, the only way to get rid of it is to stick a needle in your arm. It makes a lot of sense then.

[Fidatelo]

I did not know you could snort heroin. That does make some sense then.

Now excuse me while I hug my kids and pray they never need to know that either.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I don't find the addiction part as hard to understand as the fact anyone ever tries heroin in the first place. Like has been said earlier in the thread, we all know what the eventual likely outcome is. And not only that, but you have to stick a friggin' needle in your arm to do it! I'm not sure where I'd have to be in my head to get past those barriers the first time.

I realize that smoking and shooting up heroin are miles apart in most respects, but isn't it the same in one way? At this point, everyone should know that smoking cigarettes is bad for you and causes cancer, yet millions of people still smoke with newbies starting every day. Doesn't make sense to me...at all.

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I did not know you could snort heroin. That does make some sense then.

Now excuse me while I hug my kids and pray they never need to know that either.

+2

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I realize that smoking and shooting up heroin are miles apart in most respects, but isn't it the same in one way? At this point, everyone should know that smoking cigarettes is bad for you and causes cancer, yet millions of people still smoke with newbies starting every day. Doesn't make sense to me...at all.

But smoking is legal, and so much more casual, and while dangerous it's not 'you will get hooked immediately and be stealing from your loved ones and giving blow jobs for hits' dangerous. And then there are the needles. Seriously, fucking needles. I can see alternate universes where someone hits me at the exact right (wrong) time and convinces me to do cocaine or LSD or something, but I can't imagine ever letting someone that isn't in a doctor's office or hospital convince me to jam a syringe into my arm because it might feel good after.

[Kodos]

Workman's Waste of Time: Phil Hoffman, RIP

A eulogy from a fellow Fairport High School alum.

[molson]

The risks of selling heroin to a celebrity. Though, to be fair, if one of your clients OD's with your number in his cell phone, the police are probably coming after you regardless. But the notoriety won't be helpful when trying to work a plea deal or a lenient sentence. I've also seen some prosecutors attempt to attach more aggravated charges, like manslaughter or even second degree murder, where someone sells drugs to someone who ends up dead.

Source: 4 arrested in Philip Seymour Hoffman drug probe - CNN.com

[Grover]

Aaron Sorkin: Philip Seymour Hoffman and Drug Addiction | TIME.com

A short piece from Aaron Sorkin on PSH.

[law90026]

Addiction is a bitch. It plays with your mind and even when, rationally, you know that you shouldn't be doing it, your body tells you differently and you do it anyway, even though you know the risks/consequences. I would not judge an addict for succumbing.

[Grover]

Russell Brand: Philip Seymour Hoffman is another victim of extremely stupid drug laws | Comment is free | The Guardian

Russell Brand weighs in.

[molson]

I'm on board the feeling-sympathy-for-Hoffman-and-drug-addicts-generally side of things but people like Russell Brand who want to blame others for their plight makes that difficult.

I do wonder what Brand's world would look like. Where heroin was legal and heroin addiction "not stigmatized." Where the state somehow has acquired the power to cure all addiction with a magic wand, just by spending enough money. That last part always bewilders me. People with huge resources fall victim to addiction. Why do so many people think it's so easy for a court to sentence someone, against their will, usually, to be cured from addiction with treatment and rehabilitation? They try, today, it doesn't work. And no state will ever be able to spend as much money on every individual addict that Hoffman, and Brand had to spend on themselves. Maybe Brand should cure others' addiction with his own money.

Edit: I don't know Hoffman obviously, but I'd like to think that he'd tell Brand to shut the fuck up, that he made his own choices and was ultimately responsible for them, and just lost the battle. It doesn't make Hoffman a bad guy, and it doesn't mean I don't feel sympathy for him. But it's not the government's fault.

[ISiddiqui]

Brand actually lists two countries that have changed their laws: Portugal and Switzerland and asks us to follow their leads. I don't think he ever says the state can cure all addiction - but the state can make it so addiction isn't considered something that is "your fault", but rather treated like a disease to be managed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Brand actually lists two countries that have changed their laws: Portugal and Switzerland and asks us to follow their leads. I don't think he ever says the state can cure all addiction - but the state can make it so addiction isn't considered something that is "your fault", but rather treated like a disease to be managed.

Hoffman had all the resources in the world to treat his addiction "as a disease". He's dead. And it wasn't like this was some secret he was desperately trying to keep. He went on 60 minutes to talk about it, and had gone to rehab. Still dead.

Effective (which is always a relative term when it comes to this stuff) drug treatment programs typically don't start with the idea that, "this isn't your fault." It is ALL on the addict to take responsibility and lead his own destiny. States send TONS of money on sympathetic approaches to drug addictions, rehabilitation efforts, all free, and unless the addict is on board, these go nowhere. If all it takes is money and the right laws, why didn't Brand just fix Hoffman? Laws weren't holding either of them back.

Edit: To my knowledge, neither Brand nor Hoffman ever went through the criminal justice process in the States (their wealth and celebrity probably helps in that regard, drugs are more easily accessible to them), so I don't know what makes Brand such an expert about what states attempt to do now and why its their fault Hoffman is dead. I'll listen to this kind of stuff maybe when it comes to the homeless junkie-type heroin addicts, and how it might be a net societal gain to give them more free help even outside the criminal justice system, but celebrity pity parties are just painful to listen to. With all their advantages, to then blame the government for their individual plights - shut the fuck up.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Grover

Russell Brand: Philip Seymour Hoffman is another victim of extremely stupid drug laws | Comment is free | The Guardian

Russell Brand weighs in.

I'm not sure I agree with this premise, which is the logical crux of the article:

Originally Posted by article

This is an important moment in history; we know that prohibition does not work. We know that the people who devise drug laws are out of touch and have no idea how to reach a solution. Do they even have the inclination? The fact is their methods are so gallingly ineffective that it is difficult not to deduce that they are deliberately creating the worst imaginable circumstances to maximise the harm caused by substance misuse.

People are going to use drugs; no self-respecting drug addict is even remotely deterred by prohibition. What prohibition achieves is an unregulated, criminal-controlled, sprawling, global mob-economy, where drug users, their families and society at large are all exposed to the worst conceivable version of this regrettably unavoidable problem.

I think saying "prohibition does not work" is false. I think "prohibition of alcohol in 1920s USA did not work" is more accurate.

We prohibit many things as part of our social contract. We prohibit murder. It doesn't prevent all murders but we don't throw the proverbial law out with the bathwater because it's not 100% effective.

But that's not an item? Well, ok- I can't own plutonium. And I think we're pretty effective at prohibiting the owning of plutonium. For the most part, tho, there are few things that we have all out prohibition on. Mostly, we have very stringent regulation on "controlled" substances.

Not an digestible item (at some point, you're just doing enough scope shrink so that there are no comparable items)? How about Vicodin? I can't just go down to the local Kroger and buy a 100 pill dose. I would need to get it prescribed and dispensed by trained professionals.

Heck, I worked at on site at a drug company. They had very strongly regulated and monitored (down to the mg) levels of opiates. I, as a civilian non-doctor individual, could not get them. But they could to try and create new drugs. So, the unknown mid-level manager of a pharma could get heroin legally but Hoffman can't? Well, yeah- actually. We have decided as a society that these are the rules we are going to live by.

To bring it back around to prohibition: why did alcohol prohibition fail in the 20s and why did marijuana prohibition pretty much fail in the 80s-now? Laws were passed that a large enough chunk of society was not willing to abide by. And that can happen for any number of reasons: overzealous legislators, a populace that didn't think about the costs of the action, unintended consequences, situational change, whatever- any number of reasons.

Most of society is still ok with not doing heroin and with not allowing others to not do heroin. And I don't think this case is going to change that.

SI